New 100 VLL avgas approved. . . .

[Robster]

This is kind of interesting. . .I wonder if this will be the de facto standard now?

FAA Approves Use of “Very Low Lead” Fuel

In a Special Airworthiness Bulletin issued last week, the FAA has approved a new fuel—100VLL (very low lead)—for use on aircraft currently operating on 100LL. The approval was the result of collaboration with industry partners on the ASTM International task force that evaluated data supporting the incorporation of grade 100VLL into specification D910. The new fuel is identical to 100LL in all aspects, except that the maximum lead content is reduced by about 19 percent. The FAA determined that 100 VLL meets all of the performance requirements of grades 80, 91, 100, and 100LL and will perform identically in existing aircraft and engines. The fuel also has the same minimum octane rating and provides the same level of anti-knock performance as 100LL and 100 avgas grades. Since the ASTM D910 standard specifies blue coloration for both grade 100VLL avgas and grade 100LL avgas, these fuels will appear identical.
For more information on 100VLL, refer to SAIB NE-11-55 at www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/SAIB/.

 

[BobsArmory]

Just wondering why we need VLL. It's not like we have 40 million private planes belching tons of lead over North America every day of the year.

 

[car54]

removing every little bit of lead helps. It's not like the lead is good for the engines... it causes as many problems as it solves.

 

[Robster]

That, and I was told by a friend in the industry that there's only one producer of avgas lead additives in THE WORLD and they were located (if I recall correctly) in Great Britain; I'm sure that this keeps avgas prices higher. . .maybe costs will come down at some point after VLL comes out? I dunno. . . .

 

[Cujet]

From what I read, the VLL spec is met by current 100LL anyway. As producers have been reducing lead for years.

I am interested in the Swift unleaded Avgas. I've met with the engineers involved and the product is very interesting. Higher octane (around 104-105), more energy density (about 15% more energy per gallon) and heavier than 100LL. From what I understand, it runs perfectly. There may be cold start issues to work out, and other things. Still, I suspect it's a viable drop in replacement.

http://www.swiftenterprises.com/Swift Fuel benefits.html

http://www.swiftenterprises.com/FAQ.html

 

[Robster]

Thanks CuJet. . .I hadn't heard about Swift Fuel. . .cool stuff.